PURPOSE: Piezoelectric surgery (PES) uses a modulated ultrasonic frequency that permits highly precise and safe hard tissue cutting. A retrospective study on a series of spiral family implants inserted with or without PES split crest was performed to verify if implants inserted into crests split using PES have a comparable outcome to those inserted into unsplit bone. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the period from May 2004 to November 2007, 86 patients (55 women and 31 men, median age 53 yrs) were operated on and 234 spiral family implants were inserted. Among these, 21 were inserted into PES split crest. Mean follow-up was 13 months (3 to 35 months). The Kaplan-Meier algorithm was used to compare the 2 groups in survival and clinical success (ie, decreased bone resorption around implant neck). RESULTS: Only 9 of 234 implants were lost (ie, survival rate 96.2%), all of which belonged to the unsplit group but no statistical difference was demonstrated. To detect if PES split crest produces a better clinical outcome in comparison with fixtures inserted into unsplit alveolar ridges, crestal bone loss was compared in the remaining loaded implants (234--9 lost--5 not prosthetized = 220). No statistical significant difference was detected by comparing implants inserted into PES split crests with untreated alveolar ridges, although a better trend was visible for fixtures inserted into PES split crests. CONCLUSION: PES split crests provide several advantages and clinical outcomes that are not worse in terms of bone remodeling, if compared with standard procedures.
PURPOSE: Piezoelectric surgery (PES) uses a modulated ultrasonic frequency that permits highly precise and safe hard tissue cutting. A retrospective study on a series of spiral family implants inserted with or without PES split crest was performed to verify if implants inserted into crests split using PES have a comparable outcome to those inserted into unsplit bone. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the period from May 2004 to November 2007, 86 patients (55 women and 31 men, median age 53 yrs) were operated on and 234 spiral family implants were inserted. Among these, 21 were inserted into PES split crest. Mean follow-up was 13 months (3 to 35 months). The Kaplan-Meier algorithm was used to compare the 2 groups in survival and clinical success (ie, decreased bone resorption around implant neck). RESULTS: Only 9 of 234 implants were lost (ie, survival rate 96.2%), all of which belonged to the unsplit group but no statistical difference was demonstrated. To detect if PES split crest produces a better clinical outcome in comparison with fixtures inserted into unsplit alveolar ridges, crestal bone loss was compared in the remaining loaded implants (234--9 lost--5 not prosthetized = 220). No statistical significant difference was detected by comparing implants inserted into PES split crests with untreated alveolar ridges, although a better trend was visible for fixtures inserted into PES split crests. CONCLUSION: PES split crests provide several advantages and clinical outcomes that are not worse in terms of bone remodeling, if compared with standard procedures.